|
Bob,
I guess, scaleable, is the word that describes what
I was thinking of; the relay points that extend the coverage of the company
service without the expense of installing another costly tower
leasehold.
Your Digitalpath is more or less advantageous to
current ISP offerings because of the signal integrity and 2 to 3 MB connection
speed. I had hoped for a much greater speed, but somehow I assume such is
possible low costs in both directions.
Furthermore, wireless, as such, should not lead to
being arrested by gov't authorities at any level the way wired services have; a
quick and widespread acceptance, therefore,should be expected to follow this
timely introduction.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 11:05
AM
Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: OT:Two DSL
Services
Gene,
For an alternative to wireless's $250K/tower cost,
see digitalpath.net, a
soon to IPO outfit headquartered in Chico, CA and
currently deployed in CA
and TX.
Bob
-----Original
Message-----
From: hithere2222 [mailto:hithere2222@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:48 PM
To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:
[amibroker] Re: OT:Two DSL Services
Just to chime in on
this as I used to be in this business.
Wireless deployment is the most
expensive type of deployment out
right now. Granted the long term
revenue stream will net back all of
the expense involved and without having
to have a commitment to a
Bell operating companies for backhaul it is well
worth the effort and
expense. The problem is 2 fold with it as it
stands currently.
Maximum non-line-of-site deployment is limited to 5 miles
from tower
to home. Maximum line-of-site deployment is limited to 25
miles
(this is on a good day with a clear view of the source
and
destination). And deployment cost per tower. Carriers are
spending
in the neighborhood of $250,000 per tower to get the speed
and
distance. Just aa bit ouot of the reach of most start-ups.
So
when wireless arrives it will be great but until someone ponies up
the
money to do it it will never achieve what it can really be.
Verizon
offers a good wireless service but it is not fast enouogh yet
to get my
attention. Maybe for others it might work, just not for
me.
Hope my thoughts help.
Gene
--- In
amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "wavemechanic" <wd78@xxxx>
wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message
-----
> From: Michael Robb
> To:
amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26,
2005 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: OT:Two DSL
Services
>
>
> wm - as noted in my note, the FCC
has approved use of electric
lines for broadband. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/technology/15power.html?
>
>
As mentioned, we no longer need it.
>
> "10 to 100 MB
wireless transmission with reception assured by
small cigar-shaped antennae
was introduced two years ago; it is,
naturally, in existence nowhere
(except a few small private real-
estate developments where the developer
is the transmitter and the
owners/lessors are the receivers. Why? Because
the technology is too
good - It has a range of 10 to 20 miles,and too cheap
- parts cost
about the same, or less than individual home networking
devices used
now."
>
> wm - Oh, I don't know about
not needing it. Once you leave
simple home or limited area-type
installations for the "big wide
world" things get very expensive. Ask
the Australians who got it
recently (maybe they have a market in the
boonies). I'll opt for an
electiric line that is competitively priced
vis-a-vis DSL, etc.
Anything that is not competitively priced, reflecting
$$$ to get
things going, etc., will not fly,
imo.
>
> Maybe we agree about something....but not
this. How could it be
preferable to plug into rusty copper?
when wireless is available
that extends 30 miles (beyond the last power
pole...or anywhere
else) at the same or less money? Maybe it's
a matter of preference.
OK. Let the buyer decide. FCC is not a competent
technology Czar, is
it? Look at dial up. Why should they be permitted
to stifle wireless
in favor of rust? But they are. Otherwise we would
have had the 30
mile wireless last year, not this rust belt relic, Dear
Mother.
>
> wm - as noted above the Australians might
be interested in the
boonies (non-electified). However, if a electric
wire (does not
rust) goes to your place and it is significantly cheaper
than
wireless, wireless is dead. Electric utilities have
the
infrastructure in place and appear able to deliver at a
competitive
rate, and the FCC has OK'd it. So most likely it will
fly. I don't
know the story of FCC and wireless and what problems
wireless has in
our airwaves, but based on Australia's experience it will
not fly
because of cost (about A$350). I have no axe to grind and
just want
good, economical service, which electric seems to have the
potential
to offer. Only raised this subject to find out if anyone
knew the
status and not to debate the merits. Enuf ced. We'll
see how things
play out.
>
>
> Check
AmiBroker web page at:
> http://www.amibroker.com/
>
>
Check group FAQ at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your
group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
>
>
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
>
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
Service.
Check AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/
Check
group FAQ at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Yahoo!
Groups Links
Check AmiBroker
web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/
Check
group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Check AmiBroker web page at:
http://www.amibroker.com/
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
|